What objection can there be to solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner?

[hadit]

I'm giving you an experiment that should prove your hypothesis. You think people would rather work to get paid the same amount they would if they didn't work, prove it.

No one is claiming that but disingenuous, special pleading right wingers. Being able to obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed puts an upward pressure on wages on an Institutional basis.

You have maintained all this time that people would go to school instead of doing nothing. You have stated that people will take those MW jobs so they can get raises and get promoted to make more money. All the things they could be doing now, but aren't. And while you're increasing inflation to artificially raise wages you're also losing jobs and getting less money into the treasury to afford all this.

 

[hadit]

GG, the unemployment would not return a multiplier of two if people are using it permanently as income, it would become like welfare and the multiplier would diminish because you are fundamentally changing the program into something it wasn't meant to be.

It would average a multiplier of 2; and, those individuals would not be "doing nothing" as alleged by the right wing but doing something with those funds in a market friendly manner. Some of the socioeconomic effects would be less crime since some people would not want to work hard to be criminals if they could be moral and faithful to our own laws regarding employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

What source do you cite that claims you will get a multiplier of 2? And don't just recite what it does now, because you're changing it.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it is not the point. The natural rate of unemployment is around 4%. So 96% of the working population has a job, despite there being no requirement for an employer to hire them.

You have to make yourself attractive to the employer.

We are still talking about millions of persons. We would not need an endless war on poverty if what you claim is true. Why do we have any homeless problems or right wingers complaining about taxes if it is so easy to lift yourselves up from low wage jobs that make you complain about taxes?

 

[danielpalos]

Oh, so I would have to report my income, but no means testing? lol

That already happens now and you have asserted that the two programs are completely different.

 

[danielpalos]

When you apply for multiple jobs you will ultimately get one. Then, as your experience and skills grow, you will be competing at a much higher level. That doesn't address my questions though. Did you actually apply for any jobs? If you did and got turned down, did you ask why you were rejected and make adjustments to get the next one?

Why do we have an endless war on poverty or any homeless problem now?

 

[danielpalos]

Only a fool would think most people would choose to work 40+ hours for minimum wage when they could get the same amount for doing nothing.

Why do you believe it would be the same amount? Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States would be a rock bottom cost not a prevailing market based wage.

You've already stated that you want it to be $1/hr less then the MW you want.

Sure, I can still go with that. You seem to omit that gainful employment also tends to provide fringe benefits that can make actually working more attractive to persons who are ready, willing, and motivated for it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, they would be paid by lowering my net income, which I earned. You keep bouncing back and forth between what helps the poor and what helps the economy.

You miss the point that your net income would be higher even with any potential taxes taken out. And, even those on unemployment compensation pay general taxes which reduces their net income.

 

[danielpalos]

Taking water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end hoping to fill up the pool makes as much sense.

That is not an accurate equivalent since your analogy is zero sum and generates no multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

He keeps getting himself caught on that one. Bottom line, he doesn't want anyone else applying means testing, just him.

Earned income from gainful employment usually has to be reported for unemployment compensation purposes and is current practice now.

 

[danielpalos]

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure),

Lies.

Not at all. Poor CEOs simply don't work hard enough and don't deserve that level of pay increase. They should work harder and smarter. It is the right wing way. No means testing required.

 

[danielpalos]

I would not be working and I wouldn't retire. I know many people that aren't retired, get their pension, social security, 401K and still have a job. I would just choose not to work and collect all my benefits, why would I be discriminated against because of age? That is not equal protection.

You merely need be unemployed on an at-will basis. If you work there is no basis for unemployment compensation. So, don't work and don't make the money you could by working. "Be lazy", hard work advocating, right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

The stupidity of it all---
raising wages (via minimum wage increases) does NOT put people to work---it actually costs jobs

You missed the whole point by not reading or understanding the posts which explain the concept.

We are discussing unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. Some people would choose not to work if they are not required to work through unequal protection of our at-will employment laws. That means some people would simply quit on an at-will basis and obtain unemployment compensation. Employers would need to raise wages to attract motivated labor instead of having to waste time trying to "vet good liars and hypocrites" who are required to work due to unequal protection of the laws. It would result in a cost savings to the employer and a better work environment for employees.

 

[danielpalos]

If you plan would end poverty, then the welfare/food stamp/Section 8 housing systems would have solved it. Changing the source of the money does nothing.

That is Your unsupported assumption. Means testing cannot solve simple poverty in a market friendly manner by definition.

And, means testing is being misused in our alleged war on poverty. Means testing should be for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of capital under our form of Capitalism may not be enough. Means testing should be used to generate metadata in order to concentrate wealth to solve more complicated issues that prevent persons from leading more productive lives in our market based economy.

Means testing is an attempt to stop people from drawing a check if they do not need it to get by. That is all. Without means testing, someone with $100k in the bank could draw welfare. Or someone who has a spouse with a good job, owns their home ect, could draw a check from the tax payers. If UC is ever changed into what you want, there will be a means test. I assure you of that.

If the only qualification for UC is that the person does not have a job, every retiree in the US would be applying for it, despite having a pension or 401k.

That would be my plan if that went through. I could get SS, pension, 401K and $15 bucks an hour and I would work overtime to get more than 40 hours at $15 an hour. How tough would it be to get overtime for not working!

Exactly. I am just a few years away from retirement. If Daniel's fantasy plan came to fruition, I could stop working and still draw a check. My 401k is enough for me to retire now. Add in a check for $2,800 a month and I would be in great shape.

You could also save some money and invest in the markets to receive more than you could from unemployment compensation.

So why could he retire and collect and not me? Where is the equal protection?

Why would you retire if greed is good and you were making more money being employed?

 

[danielpalos]

You have maintained all this time that people would go to school instead of doing nothing. You have stated that people will take those MW jobs so they can get raises and get promoted to make more money.

I am saying that employers would need to raise their entry level wage to attract potential labor who have recourse to unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

Because it happens whenever people are given money for not working.

So what. Capitalists still have to seek a profit.

 

[danielpalos]

Lordy, don't you know how anything works.

Raising minimum wage does not take people welfare. It costs jobs forcing more on welfare and it causes INFLATION------------pushing down the standard of living as money buys less.

Not at all. You simply jumped into the argument and applied your stereotypical point of view. Why would what you claim happen if persons can simply quit their job and still collect unemployment compensation?

 

[danielpalos]

Unemployment only requires that you be unemployed.

And, Greed is Good under Capitalism if are gainfully employed.

 

[danielpalos]

And, you could also get an easy job which pays more than unemployment compensation; "hard work advocator"

You should do that.
Let us know how it goes.

In other words, right wingers don't really believe their own propaganda and rhetoric but merely prefer to "hate on the Poor"?

 

[danielpalos]

And if you want to increase MW you have to do it carefully so as to not destroy the labor market.

The labor market won't be destroyed if Capitalists are seeking to maximize profits.

It would be destroyed if you arbitrarily force a big cost increase on business. And you would because some 50% of the work force would get an immediate raise while some 20% more would demand one.

No, it would not since employers can simply pass costs on to consumer (who would be making more and able to afford it) just like most any other cost or tax.

 

[danielpalos]

You have maintained all this time that people would go to school instead of doing nothing. You have stated that people will take those MW jobs so they can get raises and get promoted to make more money. All the things they could be doing now, but aren't. And while you're increasing inflation to artificially raise wages you're also losing jobs and getting less money into the treasury to afford all this.

Not at all; I am saying employers would need to raise their entry level wages if they need less skilled labor, if persons could otherwise obtain unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.